Subsequent purchasers of property acquired by the state have no legal standing to challenge acquisition proceedings that have reached finality and vested in the government. Furthermore, a second petition on the same cause of action following the withdrawal of an initial petition without granted liberty is procedurally barred.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The present Special Civil Application No.6031 of 2018 has been filed on 24.2.2018 with the prayers as under :-

“10 (A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to immediately make a formal reference to the Central Government, enumerating the details of the land to be de-notified, if not done so far, has stated in the impugned communication dated 09.03.2017.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent – authorities to immediately de-notify the lands bearing Survey No.300/22 admeasuring 10251 sq.mtrs., as the same is not rquired for special railway project namely Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in the District of Ahmedabad and hand over the possession of the land in question to the petitioners forthwith;

(C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the necessary direction to the respondent no.2 to produce before this Hon’ble Court the detailed position of the lands in question in so far as it relates to de-notification and action taken with regard to the letters referred to hereinabove, during the hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(D) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other and further orders of grant of relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;”

2. The petitioners herein (two in number) would submit that a Special Civil Application No.4958 of 2015 was filed before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands in Moti Devti village, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad. The petitioners along with others have also challenged the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the respondents pursuant to the notification dated 24.8.2009 as well as the awards dated 26.5.2011 and 5.7.2011 passed under Section 20F(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (“the Act” for short).

3. The contention is that the acquisition was subjected to challenge on the ground of the acquisiton proceedings having been lapsed on account of gross delay and the acquisition being in contravention of the principles enunciated by the High Court as well as the Apex Court, in relation to the objectives of acquisition under the Act, the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.4.2016, which reads as under :-

“Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, upon instructions, requests to withdraw this Writ Petition with a view to make representation with rgard to the subject grievance of this Writ Petition to the authority. Permission is granted, as prayed for. Notice discharged. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into any of the contentions on merit in view of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as above and in case, if representation is made, it will be open for the authority to consider the same in accordance with law.”

4. From a bare reading of the order of dismissal of the writ petition, as withdrawn by the petitioners herein along with other persons, clearly indicates that the petitioners have given up the challenge to the legality of the acquisition proceedings. As far as the observations in the order dated 18.4.2016, granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate